80sU2isBest said:
Melon and Irvine, do you think the homosexual community is free of discriminatory behavior? If you do, watch the PBS documentary "Flag Wars" sometime. The basic synopsis is that affluent snobby homosexuals set their sights on taking over and "revitalizing" a poor minority neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio. When I say "revitalizing", I'm not talking about revitalizing for the sake of the people who live there; I'm talking about "revitalizing" by using strong arm tactics to try to force these minority people out of the homes they'd lived in for decades.
It's called "gentrification," and if you've been in places like Boston, you'd realize that there's no vast homosexual conspiracy. No, the fact is that wealthier *people* are coming back to urban areas that they abandoned after the race riots in the 1960s.
My point is that "gentrification" is happening in several cities around the country and to single out homosexuals as engaging in "discriminatory behavior" is laughable. Gentrification is annoying, but inevitable in a capitalist society, where increasing demand will (surprise, surprise) lead to increasing prices.
Affluence and snobbiness is certainly alive and well in heterosexuality, and if that PBS documentary tried to say otherwise, then I'd have to have a word or two with the producer.
And don't bother telling me "Well, that kind of thing happens to gays, also", because as you know, 2 wrongs don't make a right, especially considering the fact that the victims in this case, poverty-stricken African Americans and Hispanics, have never had enough clout or financial resources to do something like that to any group of people.
Again, this happens as a result from all wealthy people. Again, look at Boston. I lived there for two years, and it is a prime example of gentrification.
You know what this is the equivalent of? Let's use good old S&L junk bond king, Michael Milliken, as an example. Rich and white and heterosexual. He stole hundreds of millions of dollars from working people through his scams. Now what if I said, as a result of Milliken's crimes:
"Look at those all those rich heterosexuals screwing over poor people!"
No, instead, you've shown a prime example of dominant versus subordinate hegemony. If a member of the dominant hegemony commits a crime (Timothy McVeigh, for example), then it's reduced to a "small group of fanatics" that committed the crime. If a member of the subordinate hegemony commits a crime (the 9/11 hijackers), then, all of a sudden, everyone in the subordinate hegemony (Muslims) is suspect and we have to create a large response (war on terrorism) to stop these people!
Likewise, trying to blame the "big, bad homosexuals" for all of society's ills is a typical response from the dominant hegemony.
Melon